Wazamono ranking

[Jacques D.]

You all know the ranking of different blacksmiths according to the cutting ability of their swords. What do you think about this classification, is it reliable or is it just a catch ? 

[kissakai]

Sure this has been raised before

From what I can remember it not too many swords were tested so not really representative

Saying that I'm happy one of my swords has the highest ranking in this classification. A bit braggy it is all aspects of the sword that combine to make a great sword
I also think the methods were also posted which had a lot of info

 

[PNSSHOGUN]

For the time the Yamada family did a respectable job quantifying something with almost endless variances. The value now is perhaps more esoteric, but remains valid if that sort of thing interests the collector.

[Surfson]

Tameshigiri using human bodies is fortunately not done these days.  However, having the results of decades of study using this primeval method has resulted in the ranking system that has been passed along.  Although it is nice to own a sword by a maker designated as wazamono or better, I find that the Fujishiro rankings, which you use as well, are a better guide toward sword quality.  The two ranking systems seem to be correlated to some extent. It's my understanding that Fujishiro made his rankings based on his personal experience from polishing thousands of swords.

[Jacques D.]

In fact, the tests themselves are worthless because of too much bias.  On the other hand it is interesting because it gives us information about the state of mind of the samurai of that time

[Jacques D.]

In order for the results of the cutting tests to be reliable and especially to classify a sword in relation to others (saijo wazamono etc.) certain parameters must be taken into account. The depth of cut will vary according to the length of the blade, its weight and the physical condition of the tester. For example, if you test a blade of 80cm and another of 70cm with the same weight, and if you assume that the tester hits with the same force to the nearest newton (which in reality is impossible) the 80cm blade will have a better result because the speed of the monouchi will be higher; i ignore the differences of sori which amplify these biases. To compare the cutting power of blades that are not identical and without replacing the tester by a robot (that will always hit with the same force) is not relevant. 

Now you can do what you want with it, it's not my problem
  

[Surfson]

JD, Sharpness and durability were very important to a samurai when he was using the sword he was carrying in battles.  Call it worthless if you must, but it was a valid and accepted method of testing the sharpness and durability of blades, and the nomenclature is still used today.  These testers, and experience in battle, were also attuned to the tendency of certain swords with excessive tempering to break, another feature that had life or death consequences.

[Jacques D.]

That doesn't invalidate anything I said. Belief is belief, fact is fact and facts are stubborn.
 

[Mark S.]

I can’t figure out why you guys try?  Discussion is not part of the formula.  
 

Charlie Brown… Lucy… Football.  All these threads end the same.  You’re wrong. 

[Bazza]

9 hours ago, Jacques D. said:

That doesn't invalidate anything I said. Belief is belief, fact is fact and facts are stubborn.
 

So, it appears to me with examples all around us, that belief is stubborn also and in many instances not at all malleable.  Fact, on the other hand, is subject to the scientific method and there are many instances of fact stubbornly refusing to bow to truth by method...

BaZZa.

[Alex A]

Tv show mythbusters once set up a machine with a Samurai sword.

 

There was a myth about ww2 Japanese soldiers being able to cut through hot machine gun barrels. Might be on youtube

 

Anyways, for me, that would be the only way to test swords with any reasonsble accuracy

 

Too many variables

 

Interesting history though, recommend the book Tameshigiri by Markus

[Alex A]

20 hours ago, Jacques D. said:

In order for the results of the cutting tests to be reliable and especially to classify a sword in relation to others (saijo wazamono etc.) certain parameters must be taken into account. The depth of cut will vary according to the length of the blade, its weight and the physical condition of the tester. For example, if you test a blade of 80cm and another of 70cm with the same weight, and if you assume that the tester hits with the same force to the nearest newton (which in reality is impossible) the 80cm blade will have a better result because the speed of the monouchi will be higher; i ignore the differences of sori which amplify these biases. To compare the cutting power of blades that are not identical and without replacing the tester by a robot (that will always hit with the same force) is not relevant. 

Now you can do what you want with it, it's not my problem
  

Also, dont forget there was not a research facility back then producing clones for tests.

 

Take into account variables involved. Flesh, bone thickness etc and how the sword would have to strike the same spot every time.

 

Bit grim, but thats how it is.

 

 

[Matsunoki]

Surprised no one has mentioned that (imvho) it also depends heavily on how good the polisher was. It is he after all that puts the final edge on the hamon….unless the smith himself did it?

[Jacques D.]

This story about the robot reminds me of a discussion with a Japanese swordsmith. He told me that the use of a power hammer is detrimental to the quality of a jigane because the blows are always done with the same force which gives a monotonous hada contrary to the use of sakite which will give "life" to a hada   

[John A Stuart]

This ranking is potential only. Given competent craft in every case what is really being tested is the polishers skill in creating an efficient edge. John

[Alex A]

Another factor……..money

 

Example.  The Hizen school brought in money for the Nebeshima clan.

 

No surprise to me Tadayoshi ranked Saijo, from memory think the 3rd was too, may be wrong.